smudges and scribbles about God(ing)

seminary education & postmodernity

(At the request of BY I’ve moved this Facebook discussion here to Theography where we can continue it and perhaps expand it differently than we might in the other context.)

David Johns is wondering a lot about seminary education, ministerial formation, and the movement from modernity to postmodernity (as well as the emerging church phenomenon). Are seminaries, his own included, so wedded to modernity that they are unable to imagine (and prepare for) ministry in living and birthing contexts?

LisaJoy Zillgitt-Stowers good queries to explore…I have to admit that what I learned about ministry I learned in CPE and other ‘real life’ situations…some things just can’t be taught in seminaries no matter how ‘good’ they may be. I, and other seminary grads, …have thought of writing a book to be given to incoming seminary students, “What to expect in ministry that Seminary does not have a class for”…you’d be in seminary for a lifetime if there was a class on everything you might encounter. CPE is an action/reflection from of education/ministry and thus you learn quickly how to use the framework from classes/education and build it into a real life experience. I learned quickly not to say, “God is always with you and working in your life” to a patient in the state hospital in Indpls when she said, “So YOUR God was there when I was abused and is working through my borderline personality?”…you also learn to be careful what scripture you share as well because it can be used to ‘harm’ in the midst of profound mental illness….just my thoughts.

Erin McDougall David, I am really interested in this query but would love to hear more from you about what you mean by “living and birthing contexts” …

‎@Erin: I mean by that the realities of our moment in history and the ones coming into being. Some of the theological discussions we rehearse repeatedly have either been resolved or they are weighted by cultural dynamics, epistemological as…sumptions, et al., that are not overwhelming present concerns and understandings.

Likewise, much of our formation is oriented toward helping keep alive institutions and organizations (movements, denominations, et al.) that have largely run their course. (Some of these, perhaps many, are structured appropriately for the 1940’s or 50’s and are speaking to cultural realities and religious sensibilities of such eras–and if our intention is to preserve them, then preaching, pastoral care, theology, leadership, spirituality, religious education, et al., will take on a particular tone, and it will not be one of new life). When do we offer thanks for the long run of our religious organizations and then allow them to pass away or to be reborn into something completely new? How do we imagine new ways of being the people of God that speak grace and gospel in our time?

This is, of course, a deep concern of mine with regard to Quakerism (and anyone who has walked with me in class has heard this before)…even the wonderfully energetic renewal movements within Friends (such as YAF), will simply reinvent the institution of Quakerism (complete with our oddities and two centuries old debates) if they do not allow Quakerism itself to break open into something very different (this is what I have begun discussing (see the most recent Quaker Religious Thought issue) as a postQuaker Christianity).

I think a lot about my vocation as a seminary prof. Am I preparing people to preserve the structures of what has been rather than to prepare people to move into the new things that God is doing (that look little like the familiar shapes of church and denomination and seminary and and and)? I can not prepare my students for yesterday and I’m not even sure that it is wise to prepare them for today. How, on the other hand, can I press into the future of God and enliven imaginations to join in those edges?

Thanks for the question, Erin. It’s just another Saturday of wondering for me.

David Johns ‎@Erin: I have to say also that I am co-clerk of our Meeting’s pastoral search committee. So, ministry, leadership, and risky (vs. tame) vision are very much on my mind.

John Price David, did not the early Quakers strip Christianity down to its very bones? If Christ is with me at all times then how am I to live? It seems to me that this simple premise and query are immutable, that terms like post-modern, modern, eva…ngelical, liberal, and conservative are irrelevant. Forms and rituals presuppose that Christ is not immediately available to me. Why do I need a water baptism or a communion ritual when I am bathed in the breath of Christ every minute of every day? These are symbols, not reality, just as wearing gray clothing today would be a symbol, not an actual act of faith or conscience, so they are irrelevant as well.

The exercise of my faith is fluid, not cast in concrete. The question is constantly in my mind and heart: What would Christ have me do in this situation? The answers that flow from these simple, yet powerful questions guide my actions and my words. They cannot be codified, compiled, nor extrapolated to someone else’s life. These questions and answers are uniquely mine. I cannot look for comfort and reassurance through conformity to a doctrine or creed, nor agreement from my neighbor. Each one is a decision I make in consultation with Christ and I must be strong enough in my faith to bear the consequences. If I am not then I will need and crave the approval of men because I am not in touch with Christ. It seems to me that the argument is how best to be reassured by other men, which is also an irrelevant argument.

Eden Grace Very interesting discussion. I can say several things from my own experience — Firstly, I was schooled in “post-modernity” twenty years ago. It did a lot of damage to my faith. Whatever we’re looking to emerge now, hopefully it isn’t that…. Secondly, while my seminary education was deeply formative for me as a Christian and as a leader, the content of my education has been almost completely irrelevant to my ministry in Kenya. I would have been much better served if I’d done an MBA or economics degree. Thirdly, the more I grow in the present reality of a living faith, the more I yearn to be steeped in the living Tradition. I worry about the utter subjectivity of the comment from John Price. I don’t know if I am representative of my generation or not, but I am not particularly comfortable with framing things as post-anything. Maybe I’d rather the pre-something. Mostly I want to stand in the living stream of 2000 years of faithfulness to Christ, and allow myself to be shaped and corrected by that Tradition.

Raymond Ontko is wondering whether the unity we seek as Quakers and modernists is in fundamental conflict with post-modernism.

Al Dodson David, I think you are struggling with a hugely important set of ideas. Might I suggest a conversation between you and Russell Haitch on the role of the Spirit in education? Both you and Russell have outstanding minds and sensitivities and seem to be thinking in related directions on this topic.

These are ideas that I have struggled with for some time now and continue to struggle with and I am glad to hear of your struggles with them. Personally, I am at a place where I feel that institutions are essentially un-Quaker. Afte…r all, the meeting structure was invented by G. F. after some time when he was concerned about Quakerism becoming something he didn’t think it was. (I know it’s more complicated than that, but there is some truth to that.)

Our meetings themselves are also institutions. How do we allow for enough risk and freshness in a movement if we must follow a certain way of being? A very simple example is one of ministry given in a unprogrammed meeting. When I lived at PH, I had a dear friend who sometimes danced for his ministry and discomfort with that by others was very interesting. Why would that kind of ministry be uncomfortable except that it is not “normal” and a regular part of how we experience the institution of Meeting?

I have been convinced (at times) that institutions are also important for passing along information. I think this is true and so am not sure that I would get rid of institutions altogether. But I do think that our isms get in the way of thinking freshly about issues. For example, I think ageism is a HUGE reason why institutions become stable – and stagnant. If you look at the history of Quakerism, it is often the YAFs who shake things up and make new exciting things happen. But how many Quaker institutions are headed up by YAFs? Or even have YAFs in positions of power? How many institutions are even taking the YAFs seriously that are among them?? (Including meetings?)

Would a seminary be a more vibrant place if they allowed for young (and I don’t mean 40 – I mean mid-20s) people to teach there or to head it up?? Would a meeting be more vital if they took a giant leap of faith and asked someone to minister who was one of the people-on-fire who was a YF or YAF and didn’t have any formal training? (Of course, one would have to have a strong pastoral care committee and a strong meeting who was putting it’s own energy into the Meeting, not just waiting for a leader to pull them along …)

This is an issue close to my heart these days – and I appreciate being able to “talk” about it with you … Thanks for taking the risky step in asking the difficult/hard questions out in the open.

John Price While the application of Christ’s teachings to my particular life situations must of necessity be subjective, Christ’s teachings are not. To the extent that we hear the same message from Christ concerning our universal questions, so we com…e together as a denomination, affirming that we have all heard that one voice in matters of shared concern. The forms and rituals adopted by that denomination are an expression of that commonality of understanding, but they are not essential. And once they become more an end in themselves than an expression of common understanding they too are irrelevant.

Josie HermioneGranger Tolton Over the past decade I have worshiped across the continuum of ritual with people who gather for Buddhist meditation without instruction on how to do it and unprogrammed Quakers on one end Greek Orthodox, Anglican Catholic and old style Cath…olic on the other. I have found myself settling on an approach to ritual that requires detachment (in the Buddhist sense).

Ritual allows us to connect with our community both in the present and ancestors in the faith. Ritual is a way of acting out our relationship with God. Ritual serves to create meaning. The community recognizes the important moments of our lives, both joyful and sorrowful.

If ritual does not serve a community then it should be discarded. The emergent movement has reminded us that neither abandoning ritual entirely nor holding to it too tightly serves us well.

I am also a bit of a moderate on the absolutist vs. subjectivist controversy. I believe that there is truth out there, reality out there even if we cannot determine it. By training I am a social constructivist. In my communication training I was taught that communication creates reality and that you cannot avoid communicating (even your avoidance is, in fact, communication). In a similar sense it is impossible to have no ritual for whatever you do that you/your community finds important and whenever/wherever you/your community finds meaning there is ritual. Thus, the modernist rejection of sacred actions is ineffectual.

We cannot reject the concept of sacred space and, thus, be wholly modernist. Despite our attempts and rational arguments, having sacred space seems to be part of the way humanity functions. In the US we have had the illusion of having no sacred space because the ancestors of many present residents left sacred spaces behind in Europe, etc. while those who had sacred spaces here were by and large killed leaving few descendants to remember. Over time we are still building up our own collective memory. Again, what we must learn is how to do this rather than focusing on rejection. What stories will we tell and how will we choose/create sacred space.

Oh, and you wanted to know about seminary 😀 People do need to know themselves and be able to communicate that with others. I think this is seminary at its best. Yes, knowing resources like what our ancestors in the faith did is important too, but claiming our own identity and knowing how to live in community with others is the key.

Kimberly Rochelle Hampton hey David…
I’m wondering what are we considering post-modern and when the post-modern era started. Look at who the “post-modernists” reference…Hegel and Schleiermacher. So haven’t we been in the post-modern world for a while now? 🙂

Brian C Young David–any chance you could move this to your blog, or re-start it there? I’d like to read the whole thread and comment later, but FB makes it hard to find stuff once it falls off the news feed… thx.

Advertisements

Like it? Share it!

Like this:

Related

5 Responses

I do agree with you that the large staffed organizations are of questionable value. Not only do they reflect a time when Quakerism was a considerably larger presence, but also reflect a business model that is “dated and heavy laden.”

As for what the seminary ought to be doing, I would favor the second idea. Somehow we need be thinking about missional vision, about the Reign of God, and about “roadways in the wilderness.” To fixate on preserving organizational agencies and structures rather than to inspire women and men to follow the Spirit of the living God into the very DNA of our time is passion misdirected.

About twenty years ago I graduated with a bright shiny undergraduated philosophy degree with the expectation that I would cash it in for a law degree or philosophy doctorate. I decided against both options. I felt that the theory and abstractness of academia (post-modernism and deconstruction being the fads du jour) weren’t connected to the real questions of morality and right living that I sought. The questions I had led me to peace activism and Friends.

The ageism that Eden Grace talks about is a very big issue though as I get older I’m wondering if it’s more resistance to anything new. I’ve seen most of the interesting twenty-something Friends I hung out with leave Friends. I’m now 43 and I can still walk into a meetinghouse and find myself the youngest in attendance–and I’m talking long-established Philadelphia area Meetings. The sorts of collapse we’ve seen in rural midwest yearly meetings are only 10-20 years away here. Most of the current batch of Philly YAFs have Quakerish jobs but worship outside the system, attending an unaffiliated worship group and/or the local cool emergent church. Not a good sign.

I’m not seeing many visionary leaders in positions of authority in the RSOF. So much of it is about how to excite donors so we can keep the bureacracies funded. The concern is all internal and any opportunity that slips between organizations is missed. The last time I was approached by my yearly meeting’s nomination committee it was for a committee for such an abstracted purpose that I never did understand what it did–best I could tell it oversaw committees that oversaw committees that oversaw some people who did things. Really, who has time for this? We’re a tiny denomination facing a demographic timebomb–is this really the kind of work we need to be doing? The projects that do get funded are more of what didn’t work before.

I’ve wondered if we really need the large-staffed Quaker orgs. Many of their functions could be handled by smaller distributed teams. Modern technologies are making it’s so easy to pull together networks on and off-line. The communication costs are so low that they are essentially negligble. Get enough committed people and you can do a lot with individual time commitments roughly equivalent to committee volunteering. I’m thinking of my own project, QuakerQuaker, but it’s not alone. There’s a lot of interesting stuff happening in the niches.

I don’t have any special insight what this means to a seminary education. But it’s worth asking if an institution like ESR should be grooming the next generation of general secretaries or focus instead on the dynamics of discernment and networking necessary for DIY ministries. How does that get taught? And who should it be teaching?

It is the natural way of things to age, die and be re-born whether that rebirth be in a genetically identifiable way or at a much broader atomic or molecular level. I believe the Church and Christianity are not exceptions.

To me, the task of a seminary education, situated as we are on the cusp of the modern/post-modern shift, is a highly complex, dangerous balancing act. Seminarians must learn to recognize and understand their own context as well as the context of the other and of the dying/evolving/rebirthing church. My experience has been that, for the most part, these are issues the seminaries are afraid to acknowledge let alone embrace and act on.

The other side of the balancing act, where I think most seminaries live with varying degrees of success is providing the historical and theological underpinning necessary if we as individuals and as the Church are to do the work of transition and transformation to newness with integrity.

Without visionary faculty and administrators who are willing to look honestly and prophetically toward the future while seeking and trusting the leading of the Spirit, I believe the seminary is doomed to the same irrelevant death as the church, or even worse, a continued existence of producing church leaders whose only role is to sit by the bedside of and ailing and dying institution.

I find myself asking many of these same questions as a recent seminary grad and as a pastor whose heart is devoted to my church community and finding ways to encourage and empower people to take part in the ongoing mission of God as it takes place all around us. Deep inside I know that this is not necessarily tied to a particular institutional or bureaucratic structure, but still I find myself beholden to those structures that I’m a part of.

As my denomination (Church of the Brethren) and my church seem to be in the throes of trying to define our identities in the midst of this rapidly-changing, postmodern, post-Christendom world, I wonder what the religious landscape will look like in 15 or 20 years if we don’t engage in such identity-transformation in Christ-centered yet culturally relevant ways.

The statement above regarding our modern church structures to be more relevant to the 1940’s and 50’s rings very true to me. I think this is one place that seminary could help those who are moving in the direction of ministry – helping to nurture both theological and practical imaginations with regards to ecclesiology and church structure. I know that I, for one, greatly valued those opportunities when they did arise and would have loved more times to intentionally engage in creative thinking with regards to what the church of the future might look like and how we as leaders might help the current church give birth to what is to come.

I think our penchant toward bounded, clearly-defined gatherings of like-minded folks defining the “church” (or denomination, etc.) must be transformed if we are to continue to bear witness to the Good News in the 21st century. Will existing fellowships, structures, and institutions be able to make that shift? Some will, some won’t. I pray that I might be a leader that can help others find healthy, helpful, life-giving ways to make that transition not just for our sake, but for the sake of others.

Erin wrote: “If you look at the history of Quakerism, it is often the YAFs who shake things up and make new exciting things happen. But how many Quaker institutions are headed up by YAFs? Or even have YAFs in positions of power? How many institutions are even taking the YAFs seriously that are among them?? (Including meetings?)”

And if we are all hearing the leading of Christ, and reaching agreement on what we hear, then how can we be a top-down institution with “positions of power”? Do some hear better than others? Are some leadings worth more than others? I believe that to the extent that we have become a top-down organization with positions of power we have departed from what the original Quakers believed. Even the fact that we make a distinction based on age and name that group is telling.